AACCJC=s Appeals Process Violates the Department=s Regulations
602.25(f)(1)(iii) ACCJC failed to afford its hearing appeals panel sufficient authority to make independent decisions.
602.15(a)(1) and (2) ACCJC=s failure to delegate sufficient authority to its hearing panel demonstrates that ACCJC lacks adequate, competent and knowledgeable staff to carry out its accrediting responsibilities.@
AACCJC Has Restricted the Right of the Public and Others to File Complaints Against the Commission, in Violation of 602.23(c)(3) - ACCJC has failed to adopt a complaint procedure that conforms to federal requirements.@
ACCJC violates this requirement because it does not accept anonymous complaints. Rather, ACCJC refuses to accept a compliant unless AThe complainant must be clearly identified and . . . must contain an original signature.@
ACCJC violate this requirement because AThe ACCJC does not review complaints presented primarily to indicate disagreement with accreditation standards.@
Federal regulation 602.23(c)(3) allows for the filing of Aany complaint.@ ACCJC violates this requirement because ACCJC does not allow complaints >which a member institution@ can raise via due process, or unless the complainant was Adirectly aggrieved by the acts or omissions.@
AACCJC also violates this requirement by declaring that it generally will not consider complaints concerning matters occurring Amore than three years prior to filing the complaint.@
Conclusion
AThese 15 violations of Federal regulations support the Department ceasing to recognize the ACCJC as a reliable accreditor. Complainants respectfully request that the Department consider this Complaint and take appropriate action. We also request that this Comment be considered in regard to the Departments future actions on continued federal recognition of the ACCJC.@
Chapter 6 Sanctions on Colleges – A Picture of Inconsistent Decisions Before 2014
Compton College - DENIAL OF ACCREDITATION (2005)
After years of poor fiscal management at Compton College, the State Chancellor’s Office took control of the Compton Community College and appointed a Special Trustee to oversee and veto any decisions of the Compton elected Board of Trustees. The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges then voted on August 3, 2004 to suspend, for a period of one year, the authority of the Compton Board of Trustees. The Board of Governors based their decision on their determination that “the Compton Community College District is not in compliance with the principles of sound management as delineated in the Board of Governors’ regulations” and “Compton has failed to maintain fiscal integrity and all efforts short of intervention have been unsuccessful.”
The State Chancellor appointed the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) to investigate Compton College’s fiscal status and make recommendations for change. Assembly Bill 1200 created FCMAT in 1991. The mission of FCMAT “is to help California's local educational agencies fulfill their financial and management responsibilities by providing fiscal advice, management assistance, training and other related school business services.” FCMAT also “provides management studies for school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges that request them.”
Following the Board of Governors’ action to appoint a special trustee, the ACCJC decided to send a 3-person Special Visiting Team to Compton on July 20 and 21, 2004 to investigate. Dr. Beno (then the Executive Director) served as the chair, one CEO (Jan Kehoe, then President of Long Beach CC and Vice-chair of the Commission) was appointed to address the management issue, and one Chief Business Officer (CBO) was chosen to look at the financial side. It should be noted that Long Beach City College is a neighboring district to Compton and would profit in increased enrollment if Compton College were to be closed. The appointment of Kehoe raises issues of conflict of interest but that apparent conflict was never addressed by the Commission. It was also unusual for the Commission to appoint such a small team to review a college. The team appointed was clearly not a team of community college “peers”. I am not aware of what role Beno and Kehoe played in the subsequent actions taken by the ACCJC as the votes and discussion are done in private sessions.
FCMAT found that of the approximately 170 “Independent Contractors” in 2002-03, all of them were “likely not qualified to be contractors.” Other improprieties were found including using a college “luxury cruiser” for non-educational programs including trips to Las Vegas. In short, FCMAT found serious financial irregularities. One instance of Board of Trustees malfeasance was found, and a board member pled guilty to criminal charges as a result.
The Special Visiting Team “ confined its examination of the college to governance, institutional integrity, finance, and human resources issues, although the specific problematic conditions of the college spilled over to include instructional quality and integrity, technology, and financial aid/student records and support services. Key among these issues was the fiscal viability of the college; what became evident to that team was the severity of institutional dysfunctions across all areas of college operations.”
The Special Visiting Team in 2004 noted in their report that the Board of Trustees used institutional credit cards for personal expenses, it required the College President to purchase five college automobiles for use by the Board, and outlined other "misuses" of college funds. They felt that the College Business Officer (CBO) appeared to be incompetent and was not able to make corrections recommended by the District's external audits. They found that the President of Compton College had no control over the Deputy Superintendent/Executive Vice President who acted as "the real president."
The Special Visiting Team that visited Compton College on July 20-21 2004 found that the college was out of compliance in three main categories - “fiscal management and stability of the College, personnel practices, and College governance.” The fiscal management and stability section dealt with the hiring of a new Business Officer, the implementation of a “strong administrative evaluation systems that will enable the President to better hold administrative staff responsible for their job performance”, and that the college should follow the recommendations contained in the FCMAT report, and implement “processes that ensure fiscal stability and integrity.”
The personnel practices that “needed improvement” included
-
reviewing job descriptions,
-
making sure employees are qualified,
-
establishment and implementation of a code of ethics,
-
a proposed restructure of administration so positions would be based on institutional needs and not the personal qualifications of incumbents, and
-
that the college establish professional development programs.
The leadership and governance concerns involved review and revision of governance processes;
-
stopping the Board of Trustees from working directly with staff, vendors, and consultants and “delegate to the President the full responsibility for administration and implementation of policy”;
-
implement training for members of the Board of Trustees using the American Association of Community College Trustees, the ACCJC, and the Association of Governing Boards; “the governing board, administrators, faculty, and staff demonstrate that they are working for the good of the institution and its students”;
-
“give the President the responsibilities for all operations of the college”; and
-
generally assure a strengthened presidency.
The eventual report of the Special Visiting team relied heavily on the FCMAT audit for its findings and their report became the basis for the Commission's judgment in January of 2005.
As is the custom of the ACCJC, the Special Visiting Team suggested sanction was never made public. Compton College had no chance to know what was coming at the January meeting of the ACCJC.
On Jan. 1, 2005, Compton College was not and had not for several years been under ACCJC sanction of any kind. Compton College had not had an ACCJC comprehensive review in 6 years. It was scheduled for one in April of 2005. As a result of the state intervention, the Commission had notified Compton in the early fall of 2004 that it would postpone the comprehensive review for one year to April 2006. This April 2006 review never occurred.
The Commission took action to place Compton College on SHOW CAUSE at its meeting of January 12-14, 2005 and demanded a Progress Report by March 15, 2005 - effectively giving the college less than two months to make any changes in their operations. The college compressed its schedule from 18 to 16 weeks to get students in and out faster, it reorganized its financial aid office, and was on its way to its highest-ever rate of summer enrollment. The state-appointed interim college president, Jamillah Moore, wrote that Compton College is "in substantial compliance."
Beno and Kehoe and a new CBO (Mike Brady from the Foothill-DeAnza Community College District) served on the subsequent SHOW CAUSE Visiting Team. The April report of the Visiting Team simply reviewed progress, or the lack of it, on the findings of its first report. As is its habit, each finding had a parenthetical reference attached to the applicable standard or eligibility requirement. The presumption in each case was that the finding showed a shortfall in compliance with that requirement/standard. The conclusion of the report read “the team found that while great progress has been made since the State Chancellor’s Office assumed control of the College, there is much to be done to repair the damage of years of poor administration and poor Board governance. Although the original reason for the Commission’s concern was fiscal instability, there is evidence that the damage is pervasive in the student services and instructional areas. The team does not want to diminish the efforts of members of the College to correct the deficiencies, but to point out how much more will have to be accomplished before the College fully meets the Eligibility Requirements and Standards of Accreditation.”
There was no indication in the visiting team report that the college accreditation would be lifted or that the college would not have until 2006 to make the necessary adjustment to avoid termination of accreditation. The visiting team recommended sanction has never been made public.
The Commission then terminated Compton College's accreditation at its June 8-10, 2005 meeting - ten months before ACCJC’s own rescheduled review. I do not know what role either Beno or Kehoe played in that decision as the votes and discussions are held in a secret meeting. In any case, in considering the short timeline allowed for corrections, it was clearly the intent of the Commission to not give the college a chance to improve but rather its goal all along was to remove accreditation.
Although accreditation was denied by the Committee on Accreditation for Junior and Community Colleges in June of 2005, the actual withdrawal was held in abeyance pending appeal.
In a letter dated July 25, 2005 Chancellor Darroch F. Young, Chancellor of the Compton College adjoining Los Angeles Community College District, wrote to Dr. Mark Drummond (California Community Colleges Chancellor) and Dr. Barbara Beno regarding the accreditation of Compton Community College. He wrote that “I also believe unequivocally that it is essential to maintain Compton College and the Compton Community College District as an independent entity.” He noted that “Compton College is the only community college in the City of Compton. In addition to serving the students from Compton it serves students from the neighboring communities of Carson, Lynwood, Willowbrook and South Los Angeles. Because of the important role the college plays in these communities, I hope you will give Compton College enough time to correct the problems the Commission and the State Chancellor’s Office have identified so that it can maintain its accreditation without disruption and continue to educate students from the communities it serves.” He concluded noting “Compton College’s long and distinguished history” and the “benefit in maintaining Compton College as an independent, single-campus district.”
The intervention by the California Community College Board of Governors was intended to help Compton to restore its fiscal integrity. By terminating accreditation, the Commission effectively killed the patient. As we have seen in other actions by the Commission, the actual quality of the education received by students was never addressed.
Compton College appealed the decision to the Commission in November, 2005. Compton College argued that, though it did have a malfunctioning Board in violation of the accreditation standard, the state intervention effectively provided an interim correction for the deficiency, by way of the state-appointed Special Trustee who assumed the authority of the Board. The Commission replied that the Special Trustee is not a board and the elected board is still not functioning. In short, the defining feature of the state intervention became, not a remedy to preserve accreditation, but, in the Commission's view, a grounds for terminating accreditation. In a letter from to Jamillah Moore, Interim Superintendent-President of Compton College, dated November 18, 2005 the ACCJC explained that “The Commission does not consider a State appointed trustee, acting under the "direction and supervision" of the Chancellor as required in the Order, to be the substantive equivalent of an independent policymaking body.” The existence of a Special Trustee and a non-functioning elected board fails to satisfy the ACCJC Eligibility Requirements for Accreditation which read, in part, “The institution has a functioning governing board responsible for the quality, integrity, and financial stability of institution and for ensuring that the institution's mission is being carried out. This board is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the financial resources of the institution are used to provide a sound educational program “ and “the governing board is an independent policy-making body capable of reflecting constituent and public interest in board activities and decisions”
The ACCJC took final action to terminate the accreditation of Compton Community College on August 22, 2006.
At the California Community Colleges September 11-12, 2006 meeting of the Board of Governors it was approved for the facilities of Compton Community College to become an off-campus educational center of the El Camino Community College District. It continues to exist as an educational center to this day.
In the 2002-03 Fiscal Year, the last academic year before intervention, the Funded Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES) stood at 6,150. In the first year of El Camino’s Compton Education Center (2006-07) the funded FTES was 2,695. This represents a 56.2% decrease. From 2003-04 to 2005-06, Compton College lost 24.4% of its Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES). During the same period of time the state total FTES only decreased by 4.7%.
In the Fall Semester of 2006, Compton College had 112 full-time faculty. By 2010 the number had fallen to 82.
Share with your friends: |
